Lakes 5 Days 2010

[familyO]

[quote="Blonde bombshell"]As someone who was not involved with the planning of the Lakes 5, but has some knowledge of the Lake District I would like to answer some of Lostagain's points.
3 While I understand your point, we are talking about the Lake District - narrow roads, lots of traffic (non orienteers), small farmers fields, rough undulating ground. What / where would you hold the events? I assume people travel to this event mainly to experience the terrain. If the main point was to have the finish in the assembly field we would be using the Lakes poorest areas and could be anywhere in England.
quote]
Areas to the north of Skiddaw / Blencathra, hillside comes right down to the road? Torver Back Common can have a fairly central event area.
Bannerdale as previous used is quite close to event centre.
With some work the other forested areas like High Dam may work, but bracken will always be a problem in the lakes.

I think a lateral thinking approach to starts like the LAMM usually features may help. Buses, trains, ferry, nothing is out of the ordinary in getting to a LAMM start.

Buses to the start, but finish in the event centre. As start times are staggered through a 4 hours window, you might only need 1 or 2 buses hired for the day doing shuttles to the start. It's clearly more work to organise, but it has been done in the UK before for orienteering.

Either way, lakes5 is a good event, with great areas. It is just a matter of getting the date right and making it a little more family friendly, that would be the icing on a rather nice cake.

[deebee]

As I understand it, the reason for moving the event was the WMOC. Many of the volunteers who were organising, controlling etc the Lakes 5 were also competing in the Masters. As for orienteering on Torver Common, I was camping there with my grandchildren last week, the eleven year old kept disappearing under the bracken

[Littleoldlady]

The cancellation of the event at Harrop Tarn should never have happened. If there was any doubt at all about Car Parking, the area should not have even been considered. The Lake District is one of the wettest places in the country and you would have thought that the organisers were already aware of this. Find the Car Park first.
Did the organisers make any attempt to substitute any of the remaining two days?

[RJ]

An area which did not have suitable parking should not have been chosen. No ifs or buts!

The cancellation of the event at Harrop Tarn should never have happened. If there was any doubt at all about Car Parking, the area should not have even been considered.

Harrop Tarn was offered as an area with all shortcomings, restrictions and limitations well understood. The L5D organisers then decided Harrop could be accepted. Whether this decision was acceptable is another question.

The ill conceived Lakes5 always suffers from having to make compromises. I feel that it is about 30% too big for its own good. It is such a pity that Cumbrian orienteering gets a tarnished reputation in so many ways because of it, IMO!

[Roger]

Amid the brickbats, nobody has complained about the lack of (organiser-supplied!) water in the finish / assembly fields. Looks to have been a good decision by the organisers, and perhaps a situation that will become the norm.

[Homer]

....and no comment on the scoring system.
It must have been OK I guess

[LostAgain]

Amid the brickbats, nobody has complained about the lack of (organiser-supplied!) water in the finish / assembly fields.

Seemed a bit nit picking to comment on this.
IMO seemed a lazy option, could not be arsed comes to mind, and is indicative of the lack of appreciation of the paying competitor. However, this was the least of the issues.

The remote finishes and long courses IMO should have required the provision o water, if the finish was in the assembly then more forgiveable.

[DaveK]

Seemed a bit nit picking to comment on this.
IMO seemed a lazy option, could not be arsed comes to mind, and is indicative of the lack of appreciation of the paying competitor. However, this was the least of the issues.

The remote finishes and long courses IMO should have required the provision of water, if the finish was in the assembly then more forgiveable.

'Paying competitors' and voluntary officials and helpers don't forget! The insinuation that they 'could not be arsed' is really not fair, given all the logistical difficulties involved in this 5 day event. The position was clearly stated and competitors always have the option of running with with a water supply, as I do if I think it necessary.

I'd also thank the organising team for a super event overall.

[karen nash]

I think no water is fine- they did tell us in advance.
Lots of issues- bottles water non-eco, big barrels full of germs???

Again the scoring system wa published in advance, although I did hear lots of dscussion (not complaint)
* would 4 days and a chasing start be good (average points for organisers etc who can't run each day)
* would cumulative times makeit easier to see what was going on?
* should the points of a W35 be decided by M16s running the same course?

Whatever system there seem to be winers, losers and happy, less happy people. Perhaps it doesn't really matter

[DM]

Remote finishes and lack of atmosphere??
Day 1; Yes it was a fair way back to the assembly field
Day 2; Car park was a flat walk away. Arena for finish area was ideal.
Day 3; ?
Day 4; Atmosphere in the finish field was good at the time I finished, loads of people hanging around to see others run in and drinking what they had thought to leave a few metres away at the clothing dump..
Day 5; Finish in the field

Water??
Roger was, I think, supporting the no water decision.
Days 2 and 5, not an issue as your water was with you in car or assembly field (D2) and if you didn't bring it then tough, you should have thought of it...
Days 1 and 4, details clearly said no water and that there was a clothing dump passed on the way back. You could have left drinks there...

Long Walks to starts??
Given the choice I would always take a longer walk to a start and have a quality course than have a short walk to a start and a compromised course, especially if it's on the edge of a good area.

Cumbrian Orienteering reputation Tarnished??
I don't see how.

Many thanks to all organisers and volunteers (self included) for another good event

[Strider]

Whilst I feel empathy with many regarding the cancellation of Harrop Tarn, one thing that hasn't been mentioned was the quality of the maps and the planning - consistently excellent throughout - and I'd like to give my thanks to the various mappers, planners and controllers from the north west - great effort all round.

S.

[DeerTick]

OK, I've had enough; I'll have to post. I had a great time last week, despite a quadruple peartree on Day 1 [1 peartree = 10 minutes].

The planners, mappers, organisers and their backup team must have been gutted to have to cancel Day 3. The last thing they need is extremelyyoungladdie and his grandmother Littleoldlady having a go at them after the hours they must have put in. How many other organisers have to dance to the non-rain gods? [Most of them]

Thank you! I'll be back.

AP

[besty]

Well said!!

[Sunlit Forres]

My sympathy is also entirely with the event team. Some of the comments on this thread are the reason why I will never contemplate organising a major event.

[DaveR]

Amid the brickbats, nobody has complained about the lack of (organiser-supplied!) water in the finish / assembly fields.

Seemed a bit nit picking to comment on this.
IMO seemed a lazy option, could not be arsed comes to mind, and is indicative of the lack of appreciation of the paying competitor. However, this was the least of the issues.

I've never understood the idea that the organisers should supply water at the finish. If you think you might be thirsty when you finish bring your own fluids! As has been pointed out elsewhere you were told beforehand what the arrangements were and could sort out your own rehydration.

As for the "paying competitors" jibe. Really If we were actually paying for all the hours put in by all the volunteers then you might have a point, but we are not. Many volunteers don't even claim for perfectly justifiable expenses. We are typically getting a very professional event for a small fraction of the true cost. We "pay" for this by putting our own time and effort in to running other events.

I'm not saying the Lakes 5-days was perfect, no event is. Some judicious and constructive criticism should always be welcome but some of the comments in this thread have been at best [\polite mode] ill considered [\end polite].

My sympathy is certainly with the event team.